COMPARING GIFTED AND NON-GIFTED SIBLING

PERCEPTIONS OF FAMILY RELATIONS

by
LAURIE BALLERING, B.S.
A THESIS
IN
HOME AND FAMILY LIFE
'

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University 1n
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
HOME ECONOMICS
Approved

December, 1982

tr[:;.
~17

. ~-

,J--

<....,...."

-~r:~

/ C?g',c'.-lt)_f

iJe>,

CCJ/) ,;:2:.. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

'
I am deeply indebted to Dr. Abbi Koch for her
direction of this thesis and to the other members of
my committee, Dr. Connie Steele and Dr. Harv Joanning,
for their helpful feedback.
I am also appreciative of all the families that
gave of their time and shared their experiences.
Lastly, my family and friends have given love and support that greatly aided the process .

..

l.l.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

ii

LIST OF TABLES.

iv

Chap ters
I.

INTRODUCTION . . . .

. . .

Rese arch Ques tions .

. .

. . . . . .
Hypo these s . . . . . . . . . . . .
Defi nitio n of Term s . . . . . .
METHOD . . . . . . .
The Subj ects . . . . .
Rese arch Instr ume nts . . . . . . .
Proc edur e. . . . . . . . . . . . .
RESULTS. . . . . . . . . .
Revie w of Lite ratu re .

II.

III.
IV.

DISC USSIO N AND CONCLUSIONS

. . .
. . .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . .
.
. . .
. . .

. . . . .
. . . . .. . . . . . .

Disc ussio n of Find ings

Conc lusio ns.

APPE NDIC ES.

. .

. .

. . . . . . . . .

iii

11

13
15
15
16
18
20
30
30

38

39

Impl icati ons for Futu re Rese arch .

REFERENCES.

. . .

42
46

LIST OF TABLES
Table

1.
2.
3.

4.

5.

6.
7.
8.

9.

Page
Mean Scores Across I.Q.'s for Family
Relations Test. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

21

Outgoing and Incoming Mean Scores for

Negative Sibling Perceptions . . . .

. . .

21

Positive Gifted and Non-Gifted Sibling

Perceptions of Family Relations (Twotailed T-test) . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

23

Negative Gifted and Non-Gifted Sibling

Perceptions of Family Relations (Twotailed T-test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

Positive and Negative Gifted and NonGifted Sibling Perceptions of Family

Relations in Two Sibling Families
(TWo-tailed T-test) . . . . . . . . .

24

. . .

I.Q. with Positive Perceptions of Family

Relations (Simple Regression) . . . . .

. .

25

I.Q. with Negative Perceptions of Family

Relations (Simple. Regression) . . . .

. . .

26

Birth Order with Perceptions of Family

Relations (Simple Regression) . . . .

. . .

27

I.Q. with Perception of Family Relations,

Controlling for Age (Partial Correlation)

28

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
In an effort to explore the environments which have
encouraged giftedness, several researchers have focused
upon parent-child interactions (Albert, 1971; Brown, 1980;
Mackinnon, 1967; Slaughter, 1980; Thiel and Thiel, 1977).
A significant portion of the research has emphasized
mother-child relationships to the exclusion of fatherchild (Albert, 1978; Cicirelli, 1975; Gowan, 1971; Groth,
1975).

As recently as 1980, Brown noted the need for

researching how both parents, particularly fathers, relate

to their gifted child.
Descriptive articles purporting to offer models for
optimum parental behavior have increased dramatically
within the last decade (Gensley, 1971; Gowan, 1971; Kester, 1978; Fine, 1977; Malone, 1976; Peterson, 1977).
These articles offer little or no empirical support for
their ideological biases and emphasize a simple causal
model between parents and gifted child.
However, as Cicirelli (1975) noted, most gifted
children have siblings, creating family interaction patterns which are much more complex than a unidimensional
model can accommodate.

And with an increased awareness

1

of the reciprocal effects of the child upon the parents

(Walters and Stinnett, 1971), even the more extensive
linear model of Cicerelli (1975) fails to encompass the
necessary complexity.

As Walters and Walters (1980) con-

eluded in their review of research in the seventies:

To understand the concurrent contribution of
parents to each other and to children in the
parent-child relationship, studies should
focus upon the mother-father -child relationship and on the mother-father -sibling-child
relationship (p.92).
The appeal of considering the entire family milieu
of the gifted child promoted this research.

The present

study investigated the mother-father -sibling-gifted child

relationship from the vantage point of the children.

Research Questions
The present study attempted to answer the following
questions:

When marital adjustment and income level are

. . .

controlled
1.

. does being a gifted child as compared to

being a non-gifted child in the same family operate as a

discriminating factor in family relations?
2.

. .

. is there a relationship between ascending

I.Q. and sibling perceptions of their relationships with

their mother and father?
3.

. is there a relationship between ascending

I.Q. and siblings' perceptions about their relationship with each other?

4 does birth order affect any of the above

relationships?
5. . do gifted siblings generate and perceive
more negative or positive reactions in the family environment than do non-gifted siblings?
Review of Literature
The following review of the literature presents
research and theory related to family relations and gifted
children.

The review is divided into four main sections:

(a) theoretical orientation,

teractions,

(b) mother-father-child in-

(c) sibling relations, and (d) family traits.

Theoretical Orientation
The family was viewed as a semi-closed system of
interacting personalities with boundaries that vary in
permeability and family themes that may promote cohesiveness or divisiveness.

In accord with Schvaneveldt and

Ihinger (in Burr, 1979}, the family was seen as encompassing three broad, semi-closed subsystems:
child and sibling-sibling.
of reciprocal dynamics:

spousal, parent-

Family interaction is an arena

spouses affect each other, parents

affect children, children affect parents and siblings

affect each other.
The processes of family interaction were considered
partial determinants of personality development of members
(Schvaneveldt and Ihinger, 1979).

However, each member

individua lly interpret s his experienc e and is therefore

involved in "making" his role rather than "taking" it
(Turner, 1962), allowing for choice and individua l responsibil ity.

The influence of the home on the child

and the child on the home is undeniabl e, if complex

(Walters and Walters, 1980).

As Kester (1978) asserted:

. the nature of the emotional , psycholog ical

and verbal interactio n in the home shapes the
child's capacity for interperso nal relationsh ips
and social sensitivi ty (p. 174).
Mother-Fa ther-Child Interactio ns
While studies have commonly focused on either paternal or maternal influence , Clarke-St ewart (1978)

ma~n-

tained that ignoring the concurren t contribut ion of the

spouse can be misleadin g.

She found that when fathers

were present during mother-ch ild interactio n, mothers responded less to their children.

In contrast, Park and

O'Leary (1975) found that fathers' presence increased

mothers' smiling and touching of their infant sons.
In spite of conflictin g research, support is given
for considerin g the entire network.

For example, the

mother's attitude toward the father influence s the child's

perceptio n of the father (Lamb, 1977).

Spousal attitude

forces the marital relations hip's quality or satisfacti on

into focus as a factor in the parent-ch ild interactio n
(Lamb, 1977).

The common practice of isolating one or two

variables masks the complexit y of the issue of mother-

father-child relationships.
Other variables besides marital adjustment in the
spousal unit of a family with gifted children have been
speculated on by Hackney (1981).

His data came from

group sessions with 40 parents of children in the top 5%

of an elementary school.

Hackney found a prevailing

negative self view among. these parents.

Many talked

about their fears, guilt and heavy sense of responsibility resulting from pressure to optimize the gifted
child's environment.
In contrast, Groth (1975) concluded that mothers of
gifted appear to have rewarding lives.

Their psychologi-

cal ages were perceived to be significantly lower than

their chronological ages as scored on a self report questionnaire.

It was assumed that people tend to feel

"younger" when there is a minimum of stress, anxiety and

unfulfilled needs.

Also, above average marriages were

suggested by the low 8% divorce rate.

The actual presence or absence of a label designating giftedness as well as the attitude toward that label
affects the spousal unit.

Fisher (1978) found that

When parents did not perceive the child as

gifted, labeling was a burden.
They were
not comfortable with the concept of giftedness, they did not think it was an appropriate
designation for their child and it caused them
to question their parenting role {p. 3318).

6
Numerous studies testify to the differential response
of parents dependent upon their child's birth order. First
born infants receive more verbal stimulation during infancy (Cohen and Beckwith, 1976) and childhood (Hodapp and
LaVoie, 1976) as well as receiving greater demands for
mature behavior (Kammeyer, 1967) and greater expectations
to excel (Sampson, 1962).

Cultural norms and differen-

tial socialization of siblings by parents apparently have

strong effects on the sibling subsystem as well as the
use children make of their intellectual potential (Pfouts,
1980).

For example, Hilton (1967) reported that mothers

interfered with and directed behavior of first barns more

often than second barns in a laboratory problem solving
study.

Potential questions become:

How are these norms

translated into family interaction patterns,?

What are

the affective messages received by the children?

How are

these messages translated into child-parent feedback and

child-child interaction?

It seems inevitable that norms

would be reflected in emotional relationships within the

family.
Sibling Relations
Relatively little study of the sibling subsystem as
a unit has been attempted outside the birth order research
area.

Schvaneveldt and Ihinger (1979) have attacked birth

order research both methodologically and theoretically.

7
Birth order may be viewed as a simplistic structural variable (Schvaneveldt and Ihinger, 1979), as an indicator
for process (Sutton-Smith and Rosenberg, 1970) or as a
factor that is discriminating in parent-child and sibling
relations (Pfouts, 1980).
Demonstrating the complexity of the birth order issue,
Cicirelli (1975) investigated the problem solving behavior
of the younger child when iQfluenced by an older sibling
or mother.

Female older siblings were apparently more in-

fluential in formal teaching situations, while male older

siblings were more influential in informal or incidental
learning situations.

Thus, sex and type of learning situa-

tion were confounding variables.

In contrast, Hayes and Bronzaft (1979) found that in
families that value education and have academically gifted
children, birth order, family size and spac1ng are not
critical variables for predicting the academically elite.
Research about gifted and non-gifted siblings has been
extremely sparse, especially when examining the quality of that sibling relationship.

A descriptive article

written primarily for parent education (Peterson, 1977),

several case studies (Sunderlin, 1981) interviews about
family reactions to labeling a child gifted (Fisher, 1978)
and a comprehensive study of birth order, age spacing, I.Q.,
and family relations (Pfouts, 1980) outline the basic information available on the sibling subsystem in which

one member is gifted.

Fisher's (1978) interviews revealed that whether the
family or the school bestows the gifted designation, labeling has a disrupting effect on families with non-gifted
siblings.

Sunderlin (1981) summarized three case studies

and included techniques she found helpful to reduce sibling rivalry.

She predicted

. . . in families where wide gaps exist between

a gifted child and his or her siblings, problems
may be more numerous and of a different order
(p. 101).
Pfouts (1980) discovered the following patterns in
sibling relations:
1.

When both the first (M 1 's) and the second (M 2 's)

sons were equal in I.Q. scores:

M1's had the worst rela-

tionships in all groups with their M2's; M2's were the

least hostile of all groups towards their M1's.

Pfouts

(1980, p. 526) noted

. it may help to explajn the relatively high
self-esteem of second barns, for whom equality
means success, and the relatively low self-esteem
of first barns for whom equality is a kind of
failure.
2.

When M2 's were gifted and M1's were not:

M2's

had the most negative feelings toward their M1's.

3.

When M1 's were intellectually superior to M2's:

M1 's and M2's had the most stable sibling roles, leading
to the conclusion that their I.Q.'s must have been congruent with family expectations.
ture of noncompetitive well being"

"M2's presented a pic(Pfouts, 1980, p. 258).

Pfouts' research study demonstrated the highly complex

role of birth order, age spacing and cultural expectations.
Family Traits
The final section of the literature review explores
two components of family issues.
are presented.

First, demographic data

Second, family issues that may be specific

to giftedness are explored.

Demographics.

Typically, articles dealing with fam-

ily issues of the gifted report demographic data to the

exclusion of relationship issues (Albert, 1980, a,b;
Albert, 1978; Barbe, 1981; Groth, 1975; Sampson, 1972).
Although these demographic issues were used as control
variables within sample selection for this research, the
related literature will be reviewed briefly.
Economic background of families with an identified
gifted child has consistently been reported to be primarily middle to upper-middle class (Albert, 1980a; Barbe,
1981; Cox, 1981).

Barbe (1981) located subjects according

to the econom1c tenth of the census tract in which the 456

gifted subjects lived while in public school.

10
Economic Tenths

Per Cent

Highest
Ninth
Eighth
Seventh
Sixth
Fifth
Fourth
Third
Second
Lowest

1.1
7.9
10.3
37.1
21.3
11.0
5.0
3.5
2.2
0.7

(p. 79)

Parental marital satisfaction for the same 456 gifted

subjects was determined by percentages living with parents
and percentages divorced.

Although marital stability is a

crude measure of marital satisfaction, the pattern is one

of marital satisfaction:

87.5% of the children were

raised by both biological parents; 5% had one or both parents die; 6.3% were living with

divorce~or

separated par-

ents.
Other demographic variables, such as race and religion, tend to be consistent with percentages in the local
population when S.E.S. is controlled.

Education level

and occupation level are highly related to the S.E.S.

level discussed above (Barbe, 1981).
Family Issues.

Initial attempts to study the influ-

ence giftedness has on family systems have been descriptive in nature.

Nevertheless, trends are developing.

Peterson (1977) found three basic ways in which a

gifted child can influence the family:

1) competition

11

among family members, 2) sibling jealousy, and 3) lack of

respect for each member's differences.

The negative tone

reflected in these issues is repeated in those issues

raised by Hackney (1981).

He found that the presence of

an identified gifted member:

1) altered the normal roles

in the family; 2) affected parents' feelings about themselves negatively; 3) required families to make special
adaptations; 4) often produced conflicting neighborhood/
school issues.
In contrast, Cox (1981) noted that parents reported
positive feelings about having a gifted child.
It was interesting that these parents didnot
seem to believe that their gifted child had
encountered unusual problems in developing satisfactory relationships with their age peers
and that only a small number were aware of
expressions of resentment toward the gifted
child by any of their other children (p. 109) .
Hypotheses
Because of the dearth of research concerning affective relationships within families containing at least
one gifted child, two questions were investigated regarding the perception of emotional relationships within the
family.
1)

Is there a significant difference between the

gifted children's perceptions of emotional relationships

and their non-gifted siblings' perceptions of emotional
relationships?

12
2)

Is there a continuous relationship between ascend-

ing I.Q. and perception of positive and negative feelings

within the family?
Because hypotheses for each of the above questions are
distinct, they are grouped below:
Question 1:
The present study hypothesized that:
1.

There would be a significant difference between

gifted and non-gifted sibling(s) perception of incoming

and outgoing positive feelings related to a) father
b) mother
c) sibling
(gifted or non)
2.

There would be a significant difference between

gifted and non-gifted sibling(s) perception of incoming

and outgoing negative feelings related to a) father
b) mother
c) sibling
(gifted or non)
Question 2:
The present study hypothesized that:
3.

There would be a relationship between I.Q. and

perception of positive feelings associated with a) father

b) mother
c) sibling
(gifted
or non)
4.

There would be a relationship between I.Q. and

perception of negative feelings associated with a) father

b) mother
c) sibling
(gifted
or non)

13
5.

There would be a relationsh ip between perceptio n

of above relationsh ips and birth order.

6.

The relations hip between I.Q. and perceptio n

would vary with the child's age.

Definitio n of Terms
The following terms and their respectiv e definition s
were used throughou t the study.
Gifted
Persons with global intellectu al superiori ty measured by scoring 130 or above .on the WISC-R, short form.
Children
Persons between the ages of six and sixteen years.
Families
A group of persons in a long term relationsh ip residing in the same location.

This group included two

or three children between the ages of six and sixteen

and an intact marriage.
Intact Marriage
Husband and wife were the children' s biologica l
parents.
Marital Adjustmen t
Averaged scores of husband and wife on the Dyadic
Adjustmen t Scale (See Chapter II) .

14
Incomin g Feeling s
Positiv e and negativ e affect the child perceiv ed as
corning from other family members towards him/he rself, as
measure d by the Bene-An thony Family Relatio ns Test,
Childre n's Version .
Outgoin g Feeling s
Positiv e and negativ e affect the child perceiv ed
that she/he was sending toward other family members , as
measure d by the Bene-An thony Family Relatio ns Test,
Childre n's Version .
S.E.S.
Estimat ed standar d of living based on locatio ns of
houses and rated by realtor s (See Chapter II).

CHAPTER II
METHOD
The following sample, research instruments, and
procedures were utilized in the present investigation.
The Subjects
The sample was self-selected.

It was gathered

through contacting members of the Lubbock Association for

Gifted and Talented and exploring referrals from interested parents and teachers.

A random sample was not

possible in the Lubbock area as there was no identified

gifted school~aged population at the time of the study.
This factor limited the possibilities to consider or
provide for all possible age spacing, ordinal positions,
and I.Q. differences.
TWenty middle and upper S.E.S. families with an
intact marital dyad and two or three children in the
age range of six to sixteen years were selected for this
study.

In order to be selected, at least one child's

I.Q. was in the gifted range and there was a 15 point

(one standard deviation) spread between highest and
lowest scores in each family.

None of the subjects had

access to a gifted program at the time of this study.

15

16
Parental marital adjustmen t as measured on the D.A.S.
averaged at least 100 (with no more than a 30 point
spread, or two standard deviation s, between scores) for
the family to qualify for inclusion in this sample.
A few of the sample character istics that will be of
interest in the final chapter will be detailed below.
The average I.Q. of the entire sample was 127, with a
range from 103 to 154.

Averages for the gifted and

non-gifte d groups were 141 and 115, respectiv ely.

were 22 gifted and 25 non-gifted siblings.
of the sample was 10.1 years.
siblings were first born:
(14%) were third born.

There

The mean age

Eight (36%) of the gifted

11 (50%) were second born; 3

Twenty-si x (55%) had one sibling,

while 21 children (45%) had two siblings.

Research Instrumen ts
The Wechsler Intelligen ce Scale for Children-R evised
(WISC-R) is a well establishe d test for intellectu al giftedness.

Split-hal f reliabili ty has been determine d at

.96 (Wechsler , 1974).

Construct validity with the Wech-

sler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligen ce (WPPSI)

and the Stanford- Binet are .82 and .73, respectiv ely.
The standard error of measureme nt averages three points
across ages and subtests (Wechsler , 1974).
Clements (1965) found a .959 correlatio n between
full scale scores and five subtests:

similarit ies,

17
object assembly, arithmeti c, picture arrangeme nt and
vocabular y.

Scaled scores on these five subtests were

added, then doubled to yield a full scale score.

Full

scale scores were available on four of the forty-seve n

children due to WISC-R testing done immediate ly prior
to this research by a private school.

Formulas using

the short form method yielded scores with zero to three

points variance from the full scale score.
Spanier's Dyadic Adjustmen t Scale has a total scale
reliabili ty of .96 using Cronbach' s Alpha.

Construct

validity with the Locke-Wa llace Marital Adjustmen t

Scale was .87 (Spanier, 1976).
The Bene-Anth ony Family Relations Test, Children' s
Version (revised, 1978) is a sociometr ic device which
allows the child to assign positive and negative feelings to all family members in a play situation that can
be scored objective ly.

Reliabili ty for each computed

factor ranges from .68 to .90, with an average of .80

(Bene and Anthony, 1978).

Validity for this type of test

is unusual as it actually measures the child's perceptio n.

Thus correlatio ns with others' perceptio n will naturally
be different in many cases.

For example, the agreement

between parental reports of sibling relations and reports

obtained from the siblings themselve s was 64% (Bene and
Anthony, 1978).

18
In the actual testing situation, the child is asked
to choose family members from a variety of line drawings
that fold into "mailboxes."

After she/he has chosen a

figure to represent everyone (including the child) , the

examiner introduces Mr. Nobody.

The child is told that

she/he will read (or be read) the statements on each

card and will drop the card into the "mailbox" of the
person that the statement most aptly describes.

The

child may also name multiple recipients or place the

card in Mr. Nobody if the statement does not apply to
anyone.

After all of the cards have been distributed,

scores are tallied on the appropriate form.

Procedure
Families were contacted by phone or letter.
nlne families were called:

Forty-

15 did not meet age range or

number of siblings requirements; 6 did not choose to

participate; 2 did not meet D.A.S. minimums; 3 had no
gifted sibling; 3 more did not meet the I.Q. spread requirement.

After receiving consent, each family was

visited two or three times.

On the first visit, each

child was individually administered the WISC-R, short

form.

On the second visit, each child individually took

the Bene-Anthony Family Relations Test.

Also, each par-

ent filled out the D.A.S., without conferring with the

other.

At that time, parents were given the opportunity

19
to schedule a conference with the researcher and a
clinical psychologist to discuss the results of the
WISC-R testing only.

Eighteen of the 20 families chose

to discuss testing.
S.E.S. was determined by asking three full time
realtors working in the area to rate a list of addresses
of the sample.
"middle"

They were asked to write "lower" (L),

(M) , or "upper" (U) based on their perceptions

of these labels and addresses.

Unanimous agreement was

achieved on 80% of the addresses.

The S.E.S. of the

final 20% was determined by taking the most common label;

~.e.,

M, M, U was rated as M.

All 20 of the families

were in the middle or upper S.E.S. group:

and 15 were middle.

5 were upper

CHAPTER III
RESULTS
This study investigated the perception of family
relations from the viewpoints of gifted and non-gifted
siblings.

All positive scores for each family member,

whether the score was originally designated as incoming (how the sibling perceived the members relating to
him) or outgoing (how the sibling perceived that he was
relating to the members), were combined.

All negative

scores were combined in the same manner.

Combining

scores in this manner depicted total positive or negative affect in each relationship.
Mean scores for family members on the Bene-Anthony
across sibling I.Q.'s are presented 1n Table 1.

Scores

are comparable between positive father/mother, positive

gifted sibling/non-gifted sibling and negative father/
mother.

However, negative non-gifted sibling scores are

twice as high as negative gifted sibling scores.

An analysis of means for outgoing and incoming negative sibling affect yielded the results reported in
Table 2.

No significant differences between outgoing

and incoming scores were found.

It was much more common

for outgoing scores to exceed incoming scores for both

groups.

20

21
Table 1
Acros s I.Q.' s

Mean Score s on the Famil y Relat ions Test:

Famil y Memb er

Mean

SD

Posit ive Fathe r

47

11

5.4

Posit ive Moth er

47

13

5.5

Posit ive Gifte d Sibli ng

28

3.7

Posit ive Non- gifted Sibli ng

30

5.0

Nega tive Fathe r

47

6.1

Nega tive Moth er

47

6.0

Nega tive Gifte d Sibli ng

28

4.3

Nega tive Non- gifted Sibli ng

30

16

8.8

Table 2
Outgo ing and Incom ing Mean Score s
for Nega tive Sibli ng Perce ption s

Famil y Memb er
Nega tive Gifte d Sibli ng

0 28
I

Nega tive Non- gifted Sibli ng

28

0 30
I

30

SD

Prob.

9.10
6.90

6.3
4.1

.36

.58

17.58
14.42

8.7
6.8

.38

.56

Means

22
A two-tailed T-test was utilized to test Hypotheses
1 and 2:

1.

There would be a significant difference

between gifted and non-gifted sibling(s) perception of

incoming and outgoing positive feelings related to a)
father, b) mother, c) sibling (gifted or non); and
2.

There would be a significant difference between gifted

and non-gifted sibling(s) perception of incoming and outgoing negative feelings related to a) father, b) mother,
c) sibling (gifted or non).

The results are shown for

each hypothesis in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.

Non-

gifted sibling perceptions are listed first in every

member category, followed by gifted sibling perceptions.
Significant differences between gifted and non-gifted
siblings in assigning positive values to gifted siblings
existed.

Significant differences existed between gifted

and non-gifted siblings in assigning negative

v~lues

to

mother and the non-gifted sibling.

Results indicated that gifted siblings were more
likely to assign negative statements to non-gifted siblings than were other non-gifted siblings in the same
family.

Non-gifted siblings assigned more negative

statements to mothers than did gifted siblings.

Finally,

non-gifted siblings expressed more positive affect

towards gifted siblings than other gifted siblings ln
the same family.

23
Table 3
Positi ve Gifted and Non-G ifted Siblin g Percep tions of
Family Relati ons (Two- tailed T-test }

Family Membe r

Means

SD

Prob.

Father

24
23

11.85
9.95

3.67
5.23

1.20

.24

Mothe r

24
23

12.90
12.14

5.46
5.70

.47

.64

Gifted Siblin g

24

3.90
1.02

3.5*

.00

5.32
1.45

7
23

3.00
5.68

1.89
6.26

-1.14*

.30

Non-g ifted Siblin g

*T values and proba bility are separa te var1an ce estima tes.

Table 4
Negat ive Gifted and Non-G ifted Siblin g Percep tions
of Family Relati ons (TWo- tailed T-test )

SD

Prob.

5.09
3.08

8.34
2.16

1.15

.26

24
23

5.92
1.30

7.71
1.96

2.84

.oo

Gifted Siblin g

24
4

8.03
7.26

4.93
3.77

.60*

.55

Non-g ifted Siblin g

7
23

13.34
18.68

7.47
9.55

-2.14*

.04

Means

Fathe r

24
23

Mothe r

Family Membe r

*T values and proba bility are separa te varian ce estim ates.

24
T-tests were also utilized to test Hypotheses 1 and
2 for families with only two siblings.

Results for both

positive and negative perceptions are combined in Table 5.

Table 5
Positive and Negative Gifted and Non-Gifted Sibling
Perceptions of Family Relations in Two Sibling
Families (Two-tailed T-test)

Family Member

Means

so

Positive Father

13
13

13.33
10.40

6.58
4.25

1.35

.19

Positive Mother

13
13

14.29
14.60

4.85
4.58

-.17

.87

Positive Sibling

13
13

6.19
6.00

3.58
6.06

.10

.92

Negative Father

13
13

7.15
2.80

10.10
2.19

1.40

. 17

Negative Mother

13
13

8.30
.85

9.40
.99

2.85

.00

Negative Sibling

13
13

17.00
24.40

6.22
10.36

-2.20

.03

Prob.

Results indicated that non-gifted siblings were almost ten times more likely to assign negative statements
to mothers than were gifted siblings

~n

two child families.

Gifted siblings were significantly more negative in perceiving their relationship with the non-gifted sibling.
Simple regression was used to analyze Hypotheses 3,
4 and 5.

Table 6 illustrates the results of a regression

25
analysis of I.Q. with positive perceptions of family relations.

This analysis tested Hypothesis 3:

There would be

a relationship between I.Q. and perception of positive

feelings associated with a) father, b) mother, c) sibling
(gifted or non).

The only significant linear relationship

was between I.Q. and positive affect ascribed to the

gifted sibling.

Increases in I.Q. reduced the amount of

positive affect assigned to the gifted sibling.

Table 6
I.Q. with Positive Perceptions of Family Relations
(Simple Regression)

Family Member

Significant F .

Father

-0.22

.13

.05

Mother

-0.18

.43

.01

Gifted Sibling

-0.50

.00

.25

0.26

.08

.07

Non-gifted Sibling

Results of the regression of negative perceptions on

I.Q. appear in Table 7.
4:

This analysis tested Hypothesis

There would be a relationship between I.Q. and percep-

tion of negative feelings associated with a) father, b)

mother, c) sibling (gifted or non).

No significant rela-

tionship between I.Q. and perception of outgoing or

incoming negative feelings was found.

26

Table 7
I.Q. with Negative Perceptions of Family
Relations (Simple Regression)

Family Member

Significant F

Father

-0.14

.34

.02

Mother

-0.28

.06

.08

Gifted Sibling

.85

.00

.21

.03

Non-gifted Sibling

. 028
0.19

Table 8 demonstrates the results of a regreSSlOn

...

analysis of birth order with positive and negative perceptions of family relationships.
Hypothesis 5:

This analysis tested

There would be a relationship between

perception of the above relationships and birth order.

The only family member score significantly related to
birth order was positive evaluations of gifted siblings.
As birth order designation increased (second or third
born), the number of positive statements assigned to the
gifted sibling decreased.

Birth order explained 9% of

the variation in positive outgoing and incoming affect

for the gifted sibling.

27
Table 8
Birth Order with Percept ions of Family Relatio ns
(Simple Regress ion)

Family Member

Signifi cant F

Positiv e Father

-0.08

.59

.01

Positiv e

~1other

-0.05

.73

.00

Positiv e Gifted
Sibling

-0.30

.04

.09

0.20

;17

.04

Negativ e Father

-0.26

.07

.07

Negativ e Mother

-0.25

.08

.06

Negativ e Gifted
Sibling

0.26

.07

.07

Negativ e Nongifted Sibling

0.06

.70

.00

Positiv e Nongifted Sibling

A partial correla tion was utilize d to examine Hypothes1s 6 with the intent of partial ing out any effect of
age on respons es to the Family Relatio ns Test.
6 stated:

The relation ship between I.Q. and percept ion

would vary with the child's age.

Table 9.

Hypothe sis

Results are shown in

28

Table 9
I.Q. with Perception of Family Relations,
Controlling for Age (Partial
Correlation)

Probability

Family Member

df

Positive Father

-0.22

44

.14

Positive Mother

-0.14

44

.37

Positive Gifted
Sibling

-0.49

44

.00

0.25

44

.09

Negative Father

-0.13

44

.39

Negative Mother

-0.27

44

.08

Negative Gifted
Sibling

-0.04

44

.79

0.20

44

. 18

Positive Nongifted Sibling

Negative Nongifted Sibling

29

Although the correlatio n between I.Q. and positive

gifted sibling was confounde d slightly by age, the relationship remained highly significa nt.

So minimal is the

effect of age that rounding obscures the differenc es in

the correlatio n coefficie nt (compare categorie s in Table
7 and Table 9) of -0.49.

The percent of variation

accounted for.by I.Q. was 25%.

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
This discussion chapter reviews the findings in the
data analyses, draws conclusions from them and describes
their implications for future research.
Discussion of Findings
The results lent support to labeling levels of 1ntellectual ability as gifted and non-gifted.

Previous

research of intellectual and emotional functioning has

indicated the utility of conceptualizing giftedness as a
discrete category (Lehman and Erdwins, 1981).

However,

exploring family relationship issues in terms of variation between discrete categories of I.Q. had been
primarily nonempirical.

The writer posited that in

families with relatively high marital adjustment, middle

to high incomes and no special gifted educational experiences for the children, giftedness would be a selective
factor in family relations.

This postulate (specified in

Hypotheses 1 and 2) was supported for three of the eight

relationships which were studied in two and three sibling
families.

(The analysis for two sibling families will be

treated separately.)
30

31
Gifted siblings were about a third more negative in
regards to non-gifted siblings than were the other nongifted siblings in the same family (see the means in
Table 3).

The large percentage of second and third

born gifted siblings (65%) in this sample may have been

a factor.

Research into age spacing, birth order and

I.Q. conducted by Pfouts (1980) supported the notion

that gifted second and third born siblings had the most
negative relationships with non-gifted first barns.
Non-gifted siblings responded positively to gifted
siblings significantly more often than did other gifted
siblings.

Apparently, extremes of I.Q. differences are

compatible along positive relationship lines.

There was

almost no difference, however, between gifted and nongifted.sibling s in assigning negative affect to gifted
siblings.

Gifted siblings are perhaps more successful

in establishing positive relationships with the nongifted siblings.

Competition and rivalry seem more

likely to be factors when I.Q.'s are in closer proximity.

Finally, non-gifted siblings were much more likely
to assign negative affect to the mother relationship.
Both groups reported consistently high amounts of positive
affect associated with parents.

Yet non-gifted siblings

were significantly more negative with mothers.

Examina-

tion of the means indicated that non-gifted siblings were

four times more likely than gifted siblings to experience

32

negative affect toward or from their mothers.

Pfouts

(1980) found that in families where the second son was

gifted and the first son was not, the gifted second child
had a hostile relationship with mother.

The findings of

the present research questioned those of Pfouts as 65% of

the gifted siblings in the present sample were second or
third born and the analysis shows non-gifted siblings,
frequently first barns, to be more markedly hostile.
These results lent tentative support to Peterson's (1977)
and Hackney's (1981) assertions that gifted children in a
family alter normal roles and require special adaptation.
Perhaps mother is seen as the instigator of these changes
and is the recipient of resentment rather than the gifted
child.
The separate analysis for two sibling families yielded
similar results.

Gifted siblings were about a third more

negative in regards to their non-gifted siblings than the

non-gifted siblings were in their relationship with gifted
siblings.

These results were similar to those for two and

three sibling families combined.

Also, non-gifted siblings

were more often negative in assessing their relationships

with their mothers than were gifted siblings.

Non-gifted

siblings assigned negative affect to mothers ten times

more often than did gifted siblings.

These results in

the non-gifted sibling/mother relationship were more pronounced for two sibling than for two and three sibling

33
families combined.

Apparently the non-gifted sibling in

two sibling families displaced more negative associations

regarding giftedness onto the mother than did non-gifted
siblings in three sibling families who had an extra sibling to include in viewing family relations.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 asked whether a continuous relationship between I.Q. and family relationship existed.

In

other words, are certain relationships affected by increases of I.Q., disregarding the gifted designation?
The only family member score that showed a significant
correlation with I.Q. was positive incoming and outgoing
affect for the gifted sibling.

That is, as the I.Q. of

the sibling doing the reporting increased, the total

amount of positive affect associated with the gifted sibling decreased.

These results are logically consistent

with those reported for Hypothesis 1:

non-gifted sib-

lings responded positively to gifted siblings significantly

more often than did other gifted siblings.

Apparently,

more than one high I.Q. does not guarantee equanimity

among siblings, but rather reduces positive interactions.
I.Q. accounted for 25% of the variation in the positive
gifted sibling affect.
Another factor involved 1n the positive gifted sibling category was birth order, which accounted for 9% of
the variation in scores.

As birth order designation in-

creased (second or third born), the amounts of positive

34
incoming and outgoing affect for the gifted sibling decreased.

Again, the results lent mild support to Pfouts'

(1980) findings.

However, there was no significa nt inter-

action of birth order and negative gifted sibling.

Re-

sults on the Family Relations Test did not indicate a

consisten t pattern of affect contingen t upon birth order.
I.Q. and gifted/no n-gifted designatio ns appeared to be
operating much more definitive ly in this sample.

These

results supported Hayes and Bronzaft' s (1979) conclusion

that birth order is not a critical variable in families
that value education as indicated by each family's concern over providing stimulatin g education al experienc es.
After examining the Family Relations Test, the
writer concluded that the questions lent themselve s to
age-speci fic responses .

For example, adolescen ts would

typically have fewer strong positive outgoing tallies

(such as "This person in the family likes to be l.n bed
with me" or "I like to be kissed by this person in the
family")

in family members' slots and more in Mr. Nobody

than younger children because of the nature of the questions

(Appendix B).

Because the sample ages ranged from

6 to 16, controllin g for age-speci fic responses was

important .

When comparing R values in Tables 4 and 5 with

those in Table 7, age can be seen to alter all the correlations slightly, but not significa ntly.

Part of the

35

explanation for this may be that the mean age of the

sample turned out to be 10.1 years, with 21 subjects
above and 21 subjects below the mean (and a standard
deviation of 2.8).

In other words, the differences

caused by age may have cancelled each other.

The rela-

tionship of I.Q. to positive gifted sibling is still

highly significant, explaining 25% of the variation.
A final result from the data yielded information
about the 5th research question:

do gifted siblings gen-

erate and perceive more negative or positive reactions

in their family environments than do non-gifted siblings?
.

The mean responses for negative gifted siblings (8) and

negative non-gifted siblings (16) require an explanation.
The gifted sibling (primary raters of the non-gifted sibling) may have been twice as negative towards those siblings.

On the other hand, gifted siblings elicited half

as many negative responses.

Both factors appear to be operating.
2(c) was supported:

As Hypothesis

gifted siblings were significantly

more likely to assign negative affect to non-gifted siblings than were other non-gifted siblings in the same
family.

However, an examination of the means for negative

gifted sibling and negative non-gifted sibling supported

the notion that gifted siblings elicited half the total
negative responses of non-gifted siblings.

Apparently

gifted siblings perceived negative responses in regards to

36

non-gifted siblings without eliciting a strong negative

response from those siblings.

Also, it may have been

that the non-gifted sibling was the casualty of the

family, as reflected in negative mother and negative
non-gifted sibling means.
The results of this study indicated that gifted siblings did not directly generate more negative reactions
in the family environment.

However, they may have per-

ceived more negative reactions in regard to their nongifted sibling.

One of the sources of error in the Family Relations
Test is denial.

It is possible for the child to feel so

uncomfortable acknowledging a strong negative or positive

response that she/he would place the card in Mr. Nobody's
box rather than a family member's.

The writer saw evl-

dence for denial both in the testing situation and 1n

contrasting parental comments.

At times during the test

a child would begin to put a card into a family member's

box and say, "Are you going to tell mom/dad about this?"
or "I'd better not."

Even when assured of confidential-

ity, some children assessed the risk as too great.

Also,

many parents chose to discuss sibling rivalry problems

with the writer.

Their comments were not always reflected

in the scores on the Family Relations Test.

In two fami-

lies, a sibling reported to be highly competitive and

jealous did not reflect this in his/her responses.

37

Denial would deflate the results.

Given this,

the significa nt differenc e between gifted and non-gifte d

siblings' perceptio ns of negative affect with regard to
their mother gains in meaning.

Although in general sib-

lings were apparentl y much more likely to assign negative

affect to siblings than to parents, non-gifted siblings
were four {all families) or ten (two sibling families)
times more negative in assigning affect to their mother
than were gifted siblings.
The results did not consisten tly support Sunderlin 's

(1981) case study

f~ndings

that siblings with wide gaps

in I.Q. have more numerous problems or problems of a different order.

However, as the writer discussed the

results of I.Q. testing with the parents, virtually all

of the families expressed concern over providing appropriate school experienc es for their gifted child or children.

Seven of the twenty voiced concern over excess1ve

sibling rivalry and difficulty the gifted child was having in adjusting to a non-gifte d world.
Apparentl y the non-gifte d sibling experience d more
negative affect in the mother/se lf relationsh ip than in
the gifted sibling/s elf relationsh ip or was more willing
to disclose it.

Consideri ng the tendency for gifted

siblings to report more negative affect in the sibling

relations hips, non-gifte d siblings may have been displacing some of that negative affect.

One explanatio n

38

is that the gifted sibling did not directly engage the

non-gifte d sibling in negative ways.

Another possibili ty

is that maternal reactions to giftednes s result in different relationsh ips between mothers and their gifted
and non-gifte d children.

Some family issues raised by

Hackney (1981) were a requireme nt for special family

adaptatio ns and negative affects on parental self concept.

The mother, more than the father or the gifted

sibling, may be perceived to be responsib le for these

reactions .

The non-gifte d sibling may be holding the

mother accountab le for adaptation s such as special

schooling , unequal monetary commitmen t or moving.

The

strong negative mother component expressed by nongifted siblings lent some support for the idea that
maternal reactions to giftednes s in the family may
compound the difficulty of achieving a supportive family
environme nt.
Conclusio ns
Several conclusio ns seem warranted from the data in
this study.

First, the gifted/no n-gifted designatio n

appeared to be important in explainin g family relations .

The sibling subsystem was the area primarily affected,
with the non-gifte d sibling experienc ing more hostility
in the sibling and maternal relationsh ips.

Gifted sib-

lings were perceived with significa ntly less hostility

39
by other siblings; however, they perceived more negative
affect in their non-gifted sibling relationships.

I.Q.

operated in a continuous relationship only with outgoing

and incoming positive affect with respect to gifted sibling relationships.

As I.Q. increased, the amount of

positive affect in the gifted sibling relationship decreased.

Also, as birth order increased, the amount of

positive gifted sibling affect tended to decrease.

Implications for Future Research
This study was an initial effort to research the
effects of giftedness on emotional relationships within
the family.

A moderate level of marital adjustment was

required
in this study to avoid confounding relationship
.
issues.

It might be profitable to provide for varying

Dyadic Adjustment Scale scores

(from high to low) and

ascertain the effect on sibling and parental relationships as viewed by gifted and non-gifted siblings.
Researching the means on the Family Relations Test
as reported by three average I.Q. siblings may also be
revealing.

A study could be designed to compare:

average, close I.Q. siblings; average, widely different

r.Q. 's; gifted, close I.Q. siblings; gifted, widely different I.Q.'s.
Efforts were made to approximate a random sample of
gifted siblings by mirroring descriptive statistics

40

reported in previous studies (Albert, 1980; Barbe, 1981).

For example, S.E.S. was a control variable to assure
middle to upper incomes as in Barbe's (1981) study.

How-

ever, a non-random sample has less generaliz ability.

The

sample does appear to be represent ative of gifted families in Lubbock during the summer of 1982.

A random

sampling from a pool of gifted children aged 6 to 16 years

would have been preferabl e.
The Family Relations Test was administe red once to
each child.

It was possible that immediate ly prior events

in the family would be represente d dispropor tionately.

In

other words, an argument with or reward from another

family member could have been reflected more strongly at
the time of testing than two days later.

It may be more

accurate to give the Family Relations Test on two occasions separated by a month.
The Family Relations Test lends itself to further

analyses of personali ty character istics of the siblings.

For example, denial and self-imag e scores could be calculated and correlate d with giftednes s.
~n

Also, difference s

outgoing and incoming perceptio ns could be explored.

Seven of the twenty families had previously ascer-

tained their child's giftednes s.

Four of the remaining

thirteen were surprised by the particula r child who

qualified as gifted.

Replicatio n and extension s of

Fisher's (1978) study could compare family relations

~n:

41
a) familie s where the gifted sibling had been identif ied
for some time, b) familie s

whe~e

testing confirm s par-

ents' views of giftedn ess, but verific ation is just

being receive d, and c) familie s where testing reveals a
surpris e gifted member.

Testing family relation s at the

time giftedn ess was identif ied and then retestin g the
same family one and two years later would provide data
to support two issues raised by this and other studies .
Is there a negativ e effect of labelin g where the parents
disagre e with the label?

Does the factor of labelin g a

child "gifted " <?hange family relatio ns:

specifi cally,

do non-gif ted sibling s report increas ingly more negativ e

affect in the mother -sibling relation ship?

REFERENCES
Albert, R. S.
"Gifted Boys and Their Parents."
Child Quarterly 24:4 (1980) :174-178.

Gifted

-------
"Family Position and the Attainment of Eminence:
A Study of Special Family Position and Special Family
Experience." Gifted Child Quarterly 24:2 (1980) :8794.

----=-

"Cognitive Development and Parental Loss Among

the Gifted, the Exceptionally Gifted and the Creative." Psychological Reports 29 (1971) :19-26.

_____
"Observations and Suggestions Regarding Giftedness, Familial Influence and the Achievement of
Eminence." Gifted Child Quarterly 22 (1978):201-211.
Barbe, W. B.
"A Study of the Family Background of the
Gifted" in Barbe, W. B., and Renzulli, J. s. (eds.),
Psychology and Education of the Gifted. New York:
Irvington Publishers, Inc., 1981 .
B~ne,

E., and Bene, Anthony J. Manual for the Children's

Version of the Family Relations Test. Windsor,
England:
The NFER--Nelson Publishing Company, Ltd.,
1978.

Brown, F. F.
"The Relationship Between Gifted Children's
Creative Thinking Abilities and Their Parents' Perceptions of the Family Environment." Dissertation
Abstracts International 40:7-A (1980) :3944-3945.
Cicirelli, v. G.
"Effects of Mother and Older Sibling on
the Problem-Solving Behavior of the Younger Child."
Developmental Psychology 11 (1975) :749-756.
Clarke-Stewart, K. A.
"And Daddy Makes Three: The Father's
Impact on Mother and Young Child." Child Development
49 (1978): 466-478.
clements, G. R.
"An Abbreviated Form of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children." Journal of Consulting Psychology 29 (1965) :92.
cohen,

s.,

and Beckwith, L.
"Maternal Language in Infancy."
Developmental Psychology 12 (1976) :371-372.
42

43
Colley, K. D.
"Growing Up Together: The Mutual Respect
Balance" in Arnold, L. E. (ed.), Helping Parents
Help Their Children. New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1978.
Cox, R. L.
"Personal, Physical and Family Traits of Gifted
Children" in Miller, B.S., and Puce, M. (eds.), The
Gifted Child, the Family and the Community. New York:
Walter and Company, 1981.
Dewing, K.
"Family Influences on Creativity: A Review and
Discussion." The Journal of Special Education
4 (1970) :399-404.
Fine, M. J.
"Facilitating Parent-Child Relationships for
Creativity." The Gifted Child Quarterly 21 (1977):
487-499.
Fisher, E.
"An Investigation into the Effects of Positive
Labeling on the Families of Gifted Children." Dissertation Abstracts International 39:6-A (1978)_:__
3317-3318.
Gensley, J_
"The Bored Child."
terly 15 (1971) :60-61.

The Gifted Child Quar-

Gowan, J.
"What Makes a Gifted Child Creative."
Gifted Child Quarterly 15 (1971) :13-18.
Groth, N.
"Mothers of Gifted."
19 (1975) :259.

The

The Gifted Child Quarterly

Hackney, H.
"The Gifted Child, the Family and the School."
Gifted Child Quarterly 25:2 (1981) :51-54.
Hayes, R. F., and Bronzaft, A. L.
"Birth Order and
Related Variables in an Academically Elite Sample."
Journal of Individual Psychology 35:2 (1979) :214-224.
Hilton, I. D. "Differences in the Behavior of Mothers
Toward First- and Later-Born Children." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 7 (1967) :282-290.
Hodapp, A. F., and LaVoie, J. c.
"Imitation by Second
Borns in Adult-Sibling Dyads." Genetic Psychology
Monographs 93 (1976) :113-128.
Kammeyer, K.
"Birth Order as a Research Variable."
Forces 46 (1967) :71-80.

Social

Kester, E. s.
"The Affective Domain: A Dialog Not a Monolog." Creative Child and Adult Quarterly 3 (1978):
173-177.

44
Lamb, M. E.
"The Role of the Father: An Overview" in
Lamb, M. E. {ed.), The Role of the Father in Child
Development.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977.
Lehman, E. B., and Erdwins, c. J.
"The Social and Emotional Adjustment of Young, Intellectually Gifted
Children." Gifted Child Quarterly 25:3 {1981) :134137.
Mackinnon, F. A.
"The Relationship of Perceived Patterns
of Parent-Child Decision Making to Divergent Thinking Ability in Gifted Children." Dissertation
Abstracts International 27:11-A {1967):3726-3727.
Malone, c. E.
"Parents as Facilitators of Talent in the
Arts." Gifted Child Quarterly 21 {1977):487-500.
Parke, R. D., and O'Leary, s.
"Father-Mother-Infant
Interaction in the Newborn Period" in Riegel, K. F.,
and Meacham, J. A. {eds.), The Developing Individual
in a Changing World. Chicago: Aldine Publishing
Company, 1975.
Peterson, D. c.
"The Heterogeneously Gifted Family."
Gifted Child Quarterly 21 {1977) :396-411.
Pfouts, J. H.
"Birth Order, Age Spacing, I.Q. Differences
and Family Relations." Journal of Marriage and the
Family 42 (1980) :517-521.
Sampson, E. E.
"Birth Order, Eminence and Higher Education.
American Sociological Review 78 (1972) :161-175~
Schvaneveldt, J. D., and Ihinger, M.
"Sibling Relationships
in the Family," in Burr, W. P., et al., Contemporary
Theories About the Family. New York: The Free Press,
1979.
Slaughter, P. D.
"Parental Attitudes and Behaviors that
Affect Intellectual Development in Gifted Children."
Dissertation Abstracts International 40:12-A (1980):
6234.
Spanier, G. B.
..Measuring Dyadic Adjustment: New Scales
for Assessing the Quality of Marriage and Similar
Dyads." Journal of Marriage and the Family 38
(1976): 15-28.
Sunderlin, A.
.,Gifted Children and Their Siblings, .. in
Miller, B.S., and Puce, M. (eds.), The Gifted
Child, the Family and the Community. New York:
Walter and Company, 1981.

45
Sutton-Smith, B., and Rosenberg, B. G. The Sibling.
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

New

Thiel, R., and Thiel, A. F.

"A Structural Analysis of
Family Interaction Patterns, and the Underachieving
Gifted Child." Gifted Child Quarterly 21 (1977):
267-275.
Torrance, E. P.
Problem."

"Identity: The Gifted Child's Major

Gifted Child Quarterly 15 (1971) :147-155.

Turner, R. H.
"Role-Taking: Process versus Conformity,"
in_Rose, A.M. (ed.), Human Behavior and Social
Processes. Boston: Houghton-Miff lin, 1962.
Walters, J., and Stinnett, N.
"Parent-Child Relationships:
A Decade Review of Research." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 33 (1971) :70-111.
Walters, J. , and ~val ters, L. H.
"Parent-Child Relationships: A Review, 1970-1979." Journal of Marriage
and the Family 42 (1980) :80-95.
Wechsler, D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised.
The Psychological Corporation, 1974.

APPENDICES

A.

CONSENT FORMS

B.

FAMILY RELATIONS TEST ITEMS

46

47

APPENDIX A
RESEARCH CONSENT FORM
I hereby give my consent for my family's participation in the project
entitled: Perceptions of Dyadic Relationships Between Members of
Families With Gifted Children.

I understand that the person responsible for this project is: Dr.
Abbi Koch; the telephone number: 742-2775. The researcher has
explained that these studies are part of a project that has the following objective: to explore the relationships between family members
with a gifted child.
Her authorized representative has (1) explained that all our children
will take both the WISC-R, short form and the Family Relations Test,
Children's Version; (2) described the attendant risks as the more
limited interpretability of the short form of the WISC-R and the focus
on only one aspect of giftedness: intellectual; (3) described the
benefits to be expected as providing an appraisal of the children's
strengths and potentials as well as aiding research about families
with gifted children; (4) described appropriate alternative procedures
as requesting further evaluation of their children on a full assessment battery. Results of the WISC-R, short form will be available upon
request following the procedures in (1) above. At that time a clinical
psychologist and the test administrator will review the results with us,
the p~rents.
Dr. Abbi Koch has agreed to answer any inquiries I may have concerning
the procedures and has informed me that I may contact the Texas Tech
University Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects by writing them in the care of the Office of Research Services,
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, 19409, or by calling 742-3884.
If this research project causes any physical injury to participants in
this project, treatment is not necessarily available at Texas Tech University or the Student Health Center, nor is there necessarily any
insurance carried by the University or its personnel applicable to
cover any such injury. Financial compensation for any such injury must
be provided through the participant's own insurance program. Further
information about these matters may be obtained from Dr. J. Knox Jones,
Jr., Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, 742-2152, Room
118, Administration Building, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas
79409.
I understand that I may not derive therapeutic treatment from participation in this study. I understand that I may discontinue this study at
any time I choose without penalty.
Signature of both parents:

Date:

Date:
Signature of Project Director: _________________________________D_a~t~e_:_______
Signature of Witness to
oral Presentation:

Date:

48

APPENDIX A

INFORMED CONSENT

We, as parents of
,
,
and
, have been informed of the
nature of the test of a limited number of intellect ual skills that will
be administ ered. We understan d that the WISC-R, short form will be
taken by each of our children as a method of identifyi ng giftedne ss/
nongifted ness for the purpose of this research . The research er has
explained that the testing taps only one of the several types of giftedness and is being used as a convenie nce for research classific ation.
She has further explained that results of any test vary somewhat and
are, by no means, to be taken as the final word on the state of our
children 's intellec t.
The research er has assured us that she will give us the opportun ity to
review the results of that testing after the completio n of both the
WISC-R and the Family Relation s Test. At that time, she and a clinical
psycholo gist will discuss results of the WISC-R only.
We understan d that we may withdraw from this project at any time. We
also feel assured that question s can be d~rected to either Dr. Abbi
Koch at 742-2775 or to Laurie Ballering at 793-3358 .

Mother

Father

Witness

APPENDIX B

49

FAMILY RELATIONS TEST ITEMS

1.

Form for Young Children

( stands for the name by which the child is usually called.)
Positive Feelings Coming from Child

00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07

N.. thinks you are nice. Who is nice?

N. loves you. Whom does N.. love?
N. likes to play in your bed. In whose bed does N.. like
to play?
N likes to give you a kiss. Whom does N... like to kiss?
N.. likes to sit on your lap. On whose lap does N... like
to sit?
N.. likes to be your little boy(girl). Whose little boy
(girl) is N... ?
N likes to play with you. Whom does N... like to play with?
N.. likes to go for walks with you. Who should takeN .. for
walks?

Negative Feelings Coming from Child

10
N... thinks you are naughty. Who is naughty?

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

N.. doesn't like you. Who is it that N... doesn't like?

N. thinks you are bad. Who is bad?
N.. would like to spank you. Whom would N. like to spank?
N... wants you to go away. Whom would N... send away?
N... hates you. Who is it that N... hates?
N... thinks you are nasty. Who is nasty?
You make N... angry. Who makes N... angry?

Positive Feelings Going Towards Child

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

You like to play with N. Who likes to play with N.. ?

You like to kiss N. Who likes to kiss N... ?
You smile at N... Who smiles at N.. ?
You make N. feel happy. Who makes N... feel happy?
You like to hug N... Who likes to giveN ... a hug?
You love N. Who loves N... ?
You are nice toN ... Who is nice toN ... ?
You think N.. is a nice little boy(girl). Who thinks that
N is a nice little boy(girl)?

Negative Feelings Going Towards the Child

30
31
32
33
34
35
36

You smack N... Who smacks N. ?

You make N... sad. Who makes N... sad?
You scold N.. Who scolds N. ?
You make N... cry. Who makes N.. cry?
You get angry with N. Who gets angry with N.. ?
You say N.. is naughty. Who says N. is naughty?
You say N.. is a bad boy(girl). Who says N... is a bad boy
(girl)?

so
37

You don't likeN

Who doesn't likeN ?

Dependence
40
N wants you to tuck him(her) into bed at night. Who should
tuck N in at night?
41
N wants you to give him(her) his(her) dinner. Who should
giveN his(her) dinner?
42
N. wants you to help him(her) with his(her) bath. Who should
help N with his(her) bath?
43
N. likes to come to you when he(she) has hurt himself(herself).
Who is it N wants when he(she) has hurt himself(herself)?
44
N wants you to mend his(her) toys when they are broken. Who
should mend N 's toys when they are broken?
45
N. wants you to help him(her) get dressed in the morning.
Who should help N.. get dressed in the morning?
46
N. likes you to be with him(her) when he(she) is not feeling
well. Who is it N : wants when he(she) is not well?
47
N.. wants you to come when he(she) is frightened. Who is it
N.. wants to come when he(she) is frightened?

2.

Form for Older Children

Mild
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07

08
09

Positive (Affectionate) Feelings Coming from Child

This person in the family is very nice.
This person in the family is very jolly.
This person in the family always helps the others.
This person in the family has the nicest ways.
This person in the family never lets you down.
This person in the family is lots of fun.
This person in the family deserves a nice present.
This person in the family is a good sport.
This person in the family is very nice to play with.
This person in the family is very kind-hearted.

Strong Positive (Sexualized) Feelings Coming from Child

10
I like to cuddle this person in the family.
11
I like to be kissed by this person in the family.
12
I sometimes wish I could sleep in the same bed with this person in the family.
13
I wish I could keep this person near me always.
14
I wish this person in the family would care for me more than
for anybody else.
15
When I get married I want to marry somebody who is just like
this person in the family.
16
I like this person in the family to tickle me.
17
I like to hug this person in the family.
Mild Negative Feelings Coming from the Child
20
This person in the family is sometimes a bit too fussy.
21
This person in the family nags sometimes.

51

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

This person
fun.
This person
This person
This person
This person
reason.
This person
This person
This person

in the family sometimes spoils other people's

in
in
in
in

the
the
the
the

family
family
family
family

is sometimes quick-tempered.
is sometimes bad-tempered.
sometimes complains too much.
is sometimes annoyed without good

in the family is never satisfied.

in the family is sometimes not very patient.
in the family sometimes gets too angry.

Strong Negative (Hostile) Feelings Coming from the Child

30
Sometimes I would like to kill this person in the family.
31
Sometimes I wish this person in the family would go away.
Sometimes I hate this person in the family.
32
33
Sometimes I feel like hitting this person in the family.
34
Sometimes I think I would be happier if this person was not in
our family.
35
Sometimes I am fed-up with this person in the family.
36
Sometimes I want to do things just to annoy this person in the
family.
37
This person in the family can make me feel very angry.
Mild
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47

Positive (Affectionate) Feelings Going Towards Child

This person in the family is kind to me.
This person in the family is very nice to me.
This person in the family likes me very much.
This person in the family pays attention to me.
This person in the family likes to help me.
This person in the family likes to play with me.
This person in the family really understands me.
This person in the family listens to what I have to say.

Strong Positive (Sexualized) Feelings Going Towards the Child

50
This person in the family likes to kiss me.
51
This person in the family likes to hug me.
This person in the family likes to cuddle me.
52
53
This person in the family likes to help me with my bath.
54
This person in the family likes to tickle me.
55
This person in the family likes to be in bed with me.
56
This person in the family always wants to be with me.
57
This person in the family cares more for me than for anybody
else.
Mild
60
61
62
63

.Vegative Feelings Towards

This person in the family
This person in the family
This person in the family
This person in the family
it.

the Child
sometimes frowns at me.
likes to tease me.
sometimes tells me off.
won't play with me when I would like

52

64
65
66
67

This person
trouble.
This person
This person
This person

in the family won't always help me when I am in

in the family sometimes nags at me.
in the family sometimes gets angry with me.
in the family is too busy to have time for me.

Strong Negative (Hostile) Feelings Going Towards the Child

70
This person in the family hits me a lot.
71
This person in the family punishes me too often.
72
This person in the family makes me feel silly.
73
This person in the family makes me feel afraid.
74
This person in the family is mean to me.
This person in the family makes me feel unhappy.
75
This person in the family is always complaining about me.
76
77
This person in the family does not love me enough.
Maternal Over-Protection
80
Mother worries that
cold.
Mother worries that
81
Mother worries that
82
over.
Mother worries that
83
Mother worries that
84
the family.
Mother is afraid to
85
too much.
Mother is afraid to
86
rough children.
Mother worries that
87
enough.

this person in the family might catch

this person in the family might get ill.
this person in the family might get run
this person in the family might get hurt.
something might happen to this person in
let this person in the family run about
let this person in the family play with
this person in the family doesn't eat

Paternal Over-Indulgence
90
This is the person in
about.
This is the person in
91
tion to.
This is the person in
92
This is the person in
93
with.
This is the person in
94
Maternal OVer-Indulgence
95
This is the person in
about.
This is the person in
96
tion to.
This is the person in
97
This is the person in
98
with.
This is the person in
99

the family father makes too big a fuss

the family father pays too much at tenthe family father spoils too much.
the family father spends too much time
the family father likes best.
the family mother makes too big a fuss
the family mother pays too much attenthe family mother spoils too much.
the family mother spends too much time
the family mother likes best.